NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting article here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/17/the-bad-or-the-terrible/#more-887

Responses from anyone?

I disagree.

Of primary importance is to remove GWB. Reform of the electoral system is also an important issue, but wasting your vote in the presidential election is not the way to bring about such a change.

then what is? all that's going to happen is a bunch of people saying "oh no...lets reform some *other* time" and never get round to it.

the time for change is NOW.

I skimmed it, and it seems to be the same old tired arguments I've heard for the last two years--there's no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans so support someone from outside the system. Except that the premise is faulty. The Democrats may not be as progressive as someone like Monbiot desires, but they're way more progressive than the current administration and congressional leadership are. Look at the big picture and tell me we wouldn't be a substantially different country with a President Al Gore and Democratic control of at least one house of Congress.

The other thing that Monbiot conveniently leaves out is the utter lack of support Nader has thus far received from progressives in the US. Where Nader is on the ballot, he has mostly received support from Republican groups (Like the Club for Growth) who openly admit they are hoping he will siphon support away from Kerry and aid Bush's re-election. Reports of fraudulent signatures on his ballot petitions are common today. His candidacy has sputtered, not because of a centrist party movement to keep him down, but because Progressives realize that he's not the man to lead them to victory, and that prhaps he's not the Progressive they once thought he was.

then what is? all that's going to happen is a bunch of people saying "oh no...lets reform some *other* time" and never get round to it.

the time for change is NOW.

Yes. But don't give the election to Bush doing it. Reform of the presidential election is best initiated in the Congress. Write to your representatives and senators. Write to your representatives int he state legislature.

Write to them now!

*shrugs*

let the people decide ;)

the votes that go to nader instead of kerry are not nader's fault. they are nothing but the fault of the democrats for not appealing to that area. votes don't "belong" to either side.

I skimmed it, and it seems to be the same old tired arguments I've heard for the last two years--there's no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans so support someone from outside the system. Except that the premise is faulty. The Democrats may not be as progressive as someone like Monbiot desires, but they're way more progressive than the current administration and congressional leadership are. Look at the big picture and tell me we wouldn't be a substantially different country with a President Al Gore and Democratic control of at least one house of Congress.While Kerry is not as ultra right as Bush, I don't think his politics would be out of place if he was a centerist Republican. Unless I've missed it he hasn't promised to abolish the homeland security bill and he'd have also invaded Iraq. We're never going to agree on this though. The article isn't criticising genuine Democrats like you. It's the attitude that Nader supporters shouldn't vote for their preferred candidate that Monbiot is attacking.

The other thing that Monbiot conveniently leaves out is the utter lack of support Nader has thus far received from progressives in the US. Where Nader is on the ballot, he has mostly received support from Republican groups (Like the Club for Growth) who openly admit they are hoping he will siphon support away from Kerry and aid Bush's re-election. Reports of fraudulent signatures on his ballot petitions are common today. His candidacy has sputtered, not because of a centrist party movement to keep him down, but because Progressives realize that he's not the man to lead them to victory, and that prhaps he's not the Progressive they once thought he was.I don't think you're being fair to Monbiot there:

"This year, the American people have been instructed to elect one again. Almost every powerful progressive voice has told them not to vote for the progressive candidate, but to vote instead for The Man Who Isn’t There. Ralph Nader may stand for everything the Guardian, the Nation magazine, even Noam Chomsky, claim to support, but all these voices – indeed just about everyone on the left – have been urging the voters in swing states to choose John Kerry."

He makes it quite clear that many influential progressives have called for a Kerry vote. Surely if Monbiot has no support at all in the progressive movement then he won't be a threat anyway. I don't think that the claim that there is no movement to keep him down rings true considering the attempts of the Democrats to keep him off ballots.

Of primary importance is to remove GWB. Reform of the electoral system is also an important issue, but wasting your vote in the presidential election is not the way to bring about such a change.How is voting for your preferred President a wasted vote?

The article says, and I agree:

"As a result, a Guardian leader told us last week, these are “exceptional circumstances ... Mr Kerry’s flaws and limitations are evident; but they are put in the shade by the neo-conservative agenda and catastrophic war-making of Mr Bush.” . In an open letter to Ralph Nader in January, the Nation magazine claimed “this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical.”

The problem with this argument is that both publications said the same thing about the 2000 elections. The Nation’s columnist Eric Alterman blames Al Gore’s defeat on Nader’s “megalomania”. Three days before the vote, the Guardian argued that “... the marginalised Mr Nader cannot win … Exciting [Al Gore] ain’t. A visionary he is not. But he is the safe, wise choice”.

And similar warnings have been issued during almost every presidential election in modern times. Under the US electoral system, which is constructed around patronage, corruption and fear of the media, there will always be exceptional circumstances, because it will always throw up dreadful candidates. Only when the Americans choose a man or woman who is prepared to turn the system upside down and reintroduce democracy to the greatest democracy on earth will these exceptional circumstances come to an end. In choosing the bad rather than the terrible in 2004, in other words, Americans will be voting for a similar choice in 2008. Whereupon they will again be told that they’d better vote for the bad, in case the terrible gets in."

So when will you support Nader supporters backing their own candidate? We had something similar in the UK. The constant refrain was "Get the Tories Out. Get the Tories Out". And that gave us Tony Blair and the biggest growth in support the fascist British National Party has ever seen. Learn from our experience. If the radical left doesen't fill the vacumn caused by people disillusioned with the mainstream, sooner or later the radical right will.

Yes. But don't give the election to Bush doing it. Reform of the presidential election is best initiated in the Congress. Write to your representatives and senators. Write to your representatives in the state legislature.

Write to them now!Why will they care? You've made it clear you'll vote for the Democrats whatever they do.

*sighs* I hate Labour, I hate the Tories. Damn.

*Bump Bump Bumppity Bump*

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

If the Democrats lose it won't be because a small group of electors vote for Nader. It will be because a hell of a lot more people voted for Bush.

The only reason I support voting Kerry to get Bush out is because I have never seen such a horrible President in my life. I would never have thought that I would take this stance before Bush jr. Mainly I do so because he is a friggin idiot allowing the neo-cons to ruin America with frightening economic/social/foreign policies, complete disregard for the environment, discriminating against sexual minorities and because his election was a fraud. but his time will soon be over and so there you have my reasons. There could be a worse president than Bush I'm sure but Saddam Hussein is in jail right now.

If the Democrats lose it won't be because a small group of electors vote for Nader. It will be because a hell of a lot more people voted for Bush.

You mean like in Florida where the Democrats lost by about 600 votes, and Nader racked up something like 30,000? :rolleyes:

You mean like in Florida where the Democrats lost by about 600 votes, and Nader racked up something like 30,000? :rolleyes:
Yep, exactly that. The Republicans recorded roughly the same number of votes as the Democrats, ie a hell of a lot more than Nader.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.A vote for Kerry is a vote for the Homeland security act and the Iraq War.

(When in your view will it be time for Nader supporters to vote for their prefered candidate).

You know, in an other time, not too long ago, in a different situation, I faced this exact dilemma. Do I vote for candidate C, instead of candidate B, knowing that my vote might cause Candidate A to win? The election was the New York presidential primary of 2000. Candidate A was George Bush, who had tried to get all the opponents off of the ballot in NY. Candidate C was Alan Keys. I voted for B. Bush won, the rest is history.

And so I come to the dilemma knowing both sides, the good and the bad and knowing that there is no easy answer. Everyone has a vote. Every vote is important. No vote should be wasted.

Nader has no chance to be elected president. He has a snowball's chance of getting into the debates. (Assuming we get any.) If this was a simple matter of the eleoral college, then it is possible that in some states where the votes are already loopsided, one could indeed consider making a statement. But this is no longer the case.

In 2000, Gore tried to claim he got the "popular support." But let's look at how the game was played. Take New York for example. This state was a guarentee for Gore, and would not have gone to Bush unless a miracle happened of bizzare proportions. So what does that mean for Bush supporters in NY? Apathy because they already feel their vote is wasted. So they don't show at the polls. Now they had no chance to influence the electoral college, but in raw numbers they might have put a big dent in the popular numbers. And in other states the opposite effect could have occured.

You can be your bottom dollar that while they won't have any real implication, the "popular support" will still be looked at in the analysis of who should have been president.

And so we come to the old standard. To thy own self be true. If you want Bush, vote for Bush. If you want Kerry, vote for Kerry. If you want Nader, even knowing that Nader can't win, vote for Nader. (If you definitely don't want Bush, vote for Kerry, but you can always scare Kerry and say you might vote for Nader.) But in any event VOTE!

He makes it quite clear that many influential progressives have called for a Kerry vote. Surely if Monbiot has no support at all in the progressive movement then he won't be a threat anyway. I don't think that the claim that there is no movement to keep him down rings true considering the attempts of the Democrats to keep him off ballots.

I think you meant Nader instead of Monbiot, so I'll reply as if that's what you said.

I don't think Nader will be a threat this time around, and I don't blame him for Gore's loss in 2000. Gore's loss was a perfect storm--a mediocre campaign, a press corps that hammered him for missteps he didn't even make while simultaneously openly fellating his opponent, and pre-election irreregularites in Florida that made it close enough to steal--and even then Gore won the popular vote. Any one of those things changes by even a hairsbreadth and we have President Gore instead of King George the Lesser.

But here's the thing about Nader and his attempts to get on the ballot. Nader supporters are crying foul because Democrats are challenging his petition signatures, but are they arguing that Nader, because of his record as a crusader for consumer protections, shouldn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else? Are they advocating that Nader should be above the law? That's what it sounds like to me, and when these petitions are challenged, they're finding massive irregularities. I'm not talking about a couple of percent here--I'm talking about thousands of signatures in the same handwriting, or to addresses that don't exist, or where the signatory doesn't live. If one of the big party people tried to get away with that, someone would be looking at potential jail time. So why shouldn't Nader have to follow the same rules? If he's got support, he should be able to get legitimate signatures. He's not getting them.